It's not my fault I’m obsessed with toilets

The question of whether or not able-bodied people should use disabled toilets is far less important than why they're so damn hard to come by in the first place, writes Stella Young.

My mother loves to remind me that about the age of four, I made a somewhat formal announcement that I was going to be a plumber when I grew up.

I suppose I reasoned that my small stature would make me a handy size to fit into whatever nooks and crannies plumbing entails.

Being a fickle child, my plumbing aspirations quickly made way for dreams of being something else altogether, and 28 years on, my daily grind involves neither overalls nor plungers.

I do, however, spend a great deal of time talking about toilets.

It's hardly surprising, really. It is a truth universally acknowledged that all us wheelchair-users really care about is keeping able-bodied people out of our car spaces and our dunnies. Dare to park your derriere in the larger cubicle and we'll make you rue the day, right?

(Who is and isn't allowed to use disabled toilets is an age-old and frankly boring question. People who don't look disabled need to use accessible toilets for all kinds of reasons. A friend of mine is diabetic and needs extra room to inject insulin, and constantly has to explain that to people who abuse her for using disabled toilets. Another friend with a stoma uses them for similar reasons. It'd be nice if we all calmed down about that particular issue. Shit's complex. Literally.)

Nonetheless, our reputation for getting stroppy over toilets isn't entirely unwarranted. As a wheelchair user I am utterly obsessed with toilets and all my friends know it. A simple invitation to the pub is consistently followed by, "Do you know if they have an accessible toilet?"

Thankfully most of my mates are a pretty considerate bunch and they try to think about access on my behalf as often as they can. For my part, I'm pretty flexible. With enough notice I can restrict my fluid intake in the hours before going out, or resign myself to peeing with the cubicle door open and my chair parked as an ineffective privacy screen in the ladies. That might seem like a sarcastic exaggeration, but I regularly do both of those things.

In the 10 or so years I've lived in and loved Melbourne, I've developed a mental database in my head that tells me what bars and restaurants I can get into and which ones have accessible toilets. If friends ask where is good and accessible in the CBD, or in most of the inner suburbs, I can generally offer at least a couple of useful suggestions.

And so it really does burn my crumpets when previously accessible venues suddenly become inaccessible for no good reason.

Earlier this week I found myself in the CBD with a couple of friends after seeing a movie. We were in search of dinner and the usual access conversation ensued. We settled on a place I'd been perhaps a dozen times, and actually taken other wheelchair users to. We sat down, asked for a wine list and menus, and then I excused myself to pop to the loo.

Heading in the direction of an accessible toilet I've used many times before, a staff member stopped me in my tracks. She informed me that while there used to be a ramp on the way to the loo, it had been removed and there were now steps. Um, what?

Not to worry, she assures me, I can go next door. Well, we can go next door. The alternative is in fact two doors down, up two separate sets of steps with wheelchair lifts (both of which look like they could cark it at any moment) and behind another locked door - a door outside which the aforementioned staff member will wait while you wee. Too bad if you need to do anything more time consuming, like check Twitter or reapply your lippy.

As annoyed as I was, I made polite conversation with the woman who escorted me to the toilet. I doubt that the decision to remove the ramp was hers. She only knew that it was removed because "drunk people in heels" had trouble navigating it and kept slipping over. She seemed genuinely confused about why it mattered to me whether I used the toilet in the venue or the one in a separate building I needed to be escorted to. Why, indeed.

The thing is: The ability to go to the toilet without asking someone else is a privilege. It's a privilege wheelchair users enjoy only when there's proper, independent access. It's a privilege we lose when venues use their accessible toilets to store the fridge that broke last week, or the over-ordered stock they don't have room to keep. We also lose that privilege when an establishment removes a ramp, rendering a previously accessible toilet off limits for us.

The privilege of just going somewhere else is one that we don't enjoy, because there simply aren't that many options. New friends are often shocked at the relatively small number of places with adequate access, and surprised that it isn't against the law to run an inaccessible venue. I briefly explain the inadequacies of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) - it is a complaint-based system where disabled people have to prove discrimination (so it's not actually "against the law" to deny access until someone complains), it's time consuming, and hardly ever yields satisfying results.

Then I offer a few accessible suggestions and hope like hell they don't decide hanging out with me is actually more trouble than it's worth. (As an aside, this is a particularly terrifying conversation to have on a date - no-one wants to be that high maintenance).

The truth is, I give much less of a shit (access permitting) whether able-bodied people use accessible toilets or not. In a world where everyone is polite and considerate, we'd all think of others before ourselves. We don't live in that world, and so I accept that able-bodied people will occupy accessible toilets and parking spaces from time to time. But I'd much rather wait outside an accessible toilet while an able-bodied person uses it than have to ask permission and be accompanied to another building. Or use the ladies with the door open. Or give myself kidney stones - I've had them three times - restricting my fluid intake and holding on.

Sometimes I just want to go out for dinner with my friends and go to the loo without stressing about it and without having to complain to staff, write emails and consider an inevitably ineffective DDA complaint. I want to go to parties without the nagging anxiety that my access requirements will mean I have to bail early. I want to accept invitations without interrogating my friends.

Physical access is one of the very first issues disability rights activists of the 1960s and '70s fought for. The fact that we're still having the same conversations so many years later is disheartening. Particularly when there are so many other issues to address - like the alarming statistics surrounding violence against women with disabilities, or the astronomical rates of unemployment among disabled people.

If I wanted to talk about toilets all day, I'd have been a plumber.

Stella Young is a comedian, television presenter, disability advocate and editor of ABC's Ramp Up website. View her full profile here.

Comments (84)

Elizabeth:

Iain Hall:

06 Feb 2014 2:43:13pm

I likewise enjoyed Stella's piece and I just want to add that disabled toilets have been a godsend for me when I was shopping with my (then) young daughter. Naturally I was unwilling to take her into a men's toilet and the parents toilet was often occupied using the disabled toilet was the only option.

Rusty:

cuteyoungchic:

06 Feb 2014 5:01:54pm

Din & Rusty,I opened a Laundromat in 2000, built before it was mandatory to provide wide doorways (for the ever-widening size of wheelchairs). To alter my front door, and to alter the size of the whole kitchen so that I could re-locate the toilet because the existing one wasn't wide enough, was going to cost me over $40,000. I told the shire I can't now have a Laundromat. End of story.They rang me days later encouraging me to still open the Laundromat, but they couldn't see a solution.I found a solution. I had a sign printed, & placed it outside the Laundromat front door. The sign asked that anyone unable to access my Laundromat, please kindly call me. No-one ever did. But do you know what my solution was? My solution was to buy, have delivered, and have installed, a front-loading washing machine, for wheelchair users to use in their own homes. So before you say "name & shame" ANY person, for ANY reason, you might ask yourself why you feel the need to slander people, particularly business owners, when you obviously have never run a business from a commercial premises.

missachrissa:

06 Feb 2014 5:48:12pm

i dont think she slandered people in this reasonable article. And whilst you say Ms Young has never run a business in a commercial premise i dare say you have never needed to use a toilet whilst out in a wheel chair. Because if you had, I daresay your comment would be a little more compassionate. The story you tell is a dissappointing result for you and all laundry users for sure, I hope you were able to start up another business. Ms Young meanwhile, still needs to use toilets... as we all do.....

Observer:

06 Feb 2014 6:19:09pm

While pointing out the obvious (we all need toilets) your post totally ignored the cost to business owners of installing facilities for wheelchair owners. You apparently haven't run a business, otherwise you would be a little more understanding.

Bill:

06 Feb 2014 8:05:56pm

People like you make me sick, profit before compassion and yes I do own and run a very productive business and yes I put in a disabled toilet and yes the disabled are very grateful for it. I have never had a negative comment as customers have been recommended by disabled people, it is called customer service.

DeChlair:

reaver:

06 Feb 2014 10:48:12pm

It's quite likely, cuteyoungchic, that the "unjustifiable hardship" provision contained within the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 would have exempt you from having to do the work. Financial hardship was specifically included in the "unjustifiable hardship" provision so that businesses that wouldn't be able to open or would go under due to the cost of compliance wouldn't have to comply and so would still be able to trade.

Hudson Godfrey:

06 Feb 2014 11:46:34am

Get with the times Jay, that website would be an app. In fact it'd be an upgrade to existing apps that map public toilets, which will probably wind up being integrated with one of the mapping or GPS services.

It's certainly not Stella's fault she's obsessed with toilets, and nor is it always the fault of businesses whose leased premises happen to be in older buildings. Where I think she does herself and others with similar needs a lot of good with her writing is in promoting consideration and fostering a better understanding of her circumstances. I think in that sense we owe her graciousness a greater debt than even she may expect.

What she wants is a toilet. But circumstances have conspired to make even that ordinarily simple request difficult for her, what she winds up expressing a level of reasonableness under trying circumstances that most able bodied members of the community would do exceptionally well to emulate.

As with many such issues there are two sides to the exchange. Examining our own lack of consideration would not seem to have us conclude that she ought to have to put up with it nearly as much as she does, but it might help all of us get over ourselves when it comes to being embarrassed about this kind of adversity and deal with it like ordinary human beings should.

jaden62:

07 Feb 2014 7:09:42am

When my husband was extremely ill & liable to need a toilet at a moment's notice, I discovered that there is already a website that shows all disabled toilets & toilets open at all hours. Unfortunately, we also discovered that the map wasn't up to date.

Toilets in parks that were supposed to be open were locked, businesses wouldn't let you use their toilets, etc. I used to try to plan our trips, but also had to carry spare clothes, cleanup equipment & plastic bags, just in case he had an accident.

It seems the number of public toilets in general is dropping. Ask any parent of a young child, or anyone who has any case of urgency.

Stuffed Olive:

06 Feb 2014 9:22:00am

A village near where I live had no public toilet other than the unofficial ones at the rear of the old School of Arts Hall. Then a small nursery opened and a Council condition of approval was the installation of a toilet with access for the disabled. It was built, almost as big as the little office. Very grand and actually not necessary for that little enterprise. The nursery closed. It's fenced off and locked. Behind the fence is this magnificent unused toilet facility.

mikemwa:

06 Feb 2014 9:35:10am

The ramp and disabled toilet would have been a building license requirement to comply with the disabled access and facilities requirements. Removing the ramp is illegal and the restaurant have left themselves wide open for prosecution and being sued.

reaver:

06 Feb 2014 12:30:21pm

Doubtlessly the restaurant made a judgement call on being sued- the likelihood of being sued by the rare disabled people who goes to their venue vs. the likelihood of being sued by one or more of the far more common drunk idiots who fell over on the ramp. Doubtlessly the restaurant (more likely their lawyers) decided that they had more liability with the ramp than without. It's more than likely that the ramp would still be there if the law didn't allow idiots to sue other people when they hurt themselves.

mikemwa:

06 Feb 2014 1:58:05pm

Reaver, the requirements for disabled ramps are quite stringent and it would be nigh on impossible for anyone to trip on one. Its more likely the decision to remove it was made to recover usable floor space. Either way it is still illegal to remove it.

reaver:

06 Feb 2014 11:06:13pm

I'm unfamiliar with the Act that makes it illegal to remove disabled ramps once they've been installed, mikemwa. The Disability Discrimination Act 1992 and the Disability [Access to Premises - Buildings] Standards 2010 (the current federal legislation dealing with the matter) contain no such provision. Perhaps you could direct us toward the Act that makes it illegal and specify exactly which Section of that Act is relevant.

leafygreens:

06 Feb 2014 2:20:30pm

I don't get how a drunk in heels is more likely to fall on a ramp than on steps? The ramp surface might be an issue (then resurface it) The ramp may not have a hand rail (then install one) If its 3inch heels on a drunk... aren't they technically falling off their heels?

If there is no specific hazard with a compliant access ramp's construction, then the issue is more about serving aclohol to intoxicated persons on a liscenced premesis :-)

As for cost... fire exits, sprinkler systems etc are expensive and fires don't happen very often.. but we wouldn't accept the 'cost' excuse if a premesis took out their fire doors and extinguishers..

reaver:

06 Feb 2014 3:35:09pm

We're not just talking about cost as such, leafygreens, we're talking about comparative liabilities. The liability of having proper fire infrastructure vs. no fire infrastructure is all one way- it's all legal risk without it and no legal risk with it. With the ramp it's the risk of being sued by an injured person vs. the risk of being sued by a disabled person. Furthermore there aren't the exceptions under law for fire infrastructure that there are for access. As the law explicitly makes exceptions when it comes to providing access in the case of older buildings and when providing access to the premises involves "unjustifiable hardship", including when any additional capital, operating costs or loss of revenue are involved in providing access, the restaurant's lawyers no doubt advised them that the liability of having the ramp was greater than not having the ramp. If the condition or construction of the ramp was an issue this would also have contributed to the liability assessment and contributed to the decision to remove it.

reaver:

06 Feb 2014 8:00:45pm

It's not a spurious argument, mikemwa, it's a legislated exception to the legislated requirement to provide disabled access. I've laid out the legal case, including specific references to the relevant legislation (The Discrimination Act 1991 and the Disability [Access to Premises - Buildings] Standards 2010), in my response to your post above and you'll be able to read it if the moderators let it through.

rockogirl:

06 Feb 2014 10:06:14am

Ah Stella how beautifully and ruefully expressed - and boy do I relate - not in a wheelchair but still have a physical issue which means easy access to a toilet is an absolute necessity. And no one could possibly understand when you check the length of a movie and try to work out if you can 'last' the distance or the flight time (which you wrote about at another time). I admire enormously your grace, and courage and determination to succeed in life!

Jack of All Tradies:

Good point Stella. No problem using a disabled toilet if nobody else is waiting and it's left the way it was found. For those with little kids they are also much better than the standard ones.

Public toilets, espesecially accessable ones, should be way ahead of council priorities compared to providing subsidised day care centers.

Equally annoying is why WHY they build toilets in shopping centers where you have to pull the door open to get out! This means that we all touch the handle the filthy pigs who never wash hands have just touched.

sdrawkcaB:

06 Feb 2014 12:52:04pm

An outward opening door has the ability to collect someone who is walking along the passageway.

Additionally, that passageway needs to be so wide for emergency egress. If you open a door into the passageway then the width of the door panel needs to added to the passageway width and bollards need to be installed so an emergency egresser is immune from being belted by an opening door.

The bollards then become an egress issue and so must be 1000 from the wall.

Passageway widths are not leasable space and so are normally minimized.

GJA:

06 Feb 2014 4:07:10pm

Exits that open inward can constitute a fire hazard. Probably not as much of an issue in a toilet as elsewhere, but a design principle nevertheless. Speaking of design, good design in the first place alleviates a lot of problems.

sdrawkcaB:

06 Feb 2014 5:04:20pm

Exits that open inward are a fire hazard and are banned.

Toilet doors are not an exit. Its an egress onto a path of exit in the case of shopping centre where they are normally located down a side passageway. In the shopping centre case, the other end of the passageway that you do not normally use is where the fire door is. That is the exit and will open outwards.

In the construction industry, good design is trampled on if costs 3 cents more to implement.If it was up to good design, much of that in current buildings would not be as it is.

reaver:

06 Feb 2014 8:27:33pm

Exits that open inward are not banned, sdrawkcaB. All fire doors installed after 1985 must be "single action egress"- they must be able to be opened outward with the operation of a single mechanism that can be operated with a elbow, such as a push bar or lever. Fire doors that swing inward and were installed before the "single action egress" requirement was brought in are "grandfathered" in, but if the door frame or the door itself is replaced the new set-up must comply with the "single action egress" requirement.

Ted B:

06 Feb 2014 11:02:31am

Those of us who have had certain surgery for bowel cancer also have to become adept at finding loos. The biggest challenge seems to be to find clean ones - and the mess invariably seems to come from hit and miss men who are too shy to use urinals, too inept to aim straight, too lazy to lift the seat and too lazy to clean up if they do have a wee accident.

Rolling Thunder:

reaver:

06 Feb 2014 10:51:47pm

Interesting thought bubble, Rolling Thunder, but it wouldn't work. Not enough people would be willing to give up their favourite restaurant, shop or venue to make a difference. If you were to suggest it to most people they'd say "Great idea" and then forget about it 5 minutes later.

Paul:

06 Feb 2014 11:24:12am

Hi Stella

Forget not all the dads who must take their young daughters to a public toilet. The choice is often potential embarrassment in the "gents" or an accident. The "ladies" is absolutely out of bounds ... even for change tables so any (so called) disabled toilets are a God send.

Gus:

06 Feb 2014 12:58:29pm

Speaking from personal experience, I fully agree. If there's no one waiting to use a disabled toilet, I see no harm in taking a young child, especially a granddaughter, to it, as disabled toilets are frequently cleaner than regular toilets, and usually more private.

1PE:

06 Feb 2014 11:28:26am

Thanks, Stella.

Over the last two years, I have been "working in this space" [how I hate that term, except that it fits this time] of ensuring my workgroup provides Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) -compliant rooms and access in an accommodation project.

Every time this comes up as an issue, I get an image of you in my mind's eye. Keep stirring the 'pot'.

rupasarga:

06 Feb 2014 11:29:58am

Thanks Stella! having just been attacked by rheumatoid arthritis, and my mobility gone for the present, disabled toilets have become increasingly important to me. They are essential infrastructure! You put this important issue succinctly and elegantly.

reaver:

06 Feb 2014 12:36:15pm

That would be prohibitively expensive for many places, Michael. Some places, such as restaurants, would have no option but to pay, but many other places would be able to get around it simply by denying public access to their toilet. Other places wouldn't be able to deny access and wouldn't be able to absorb the costs and so would close down.

Jimmy Necktie:

Chen:

06 Feb 2014 11:46:42am

I'm afraid I don't really understand the problem with an able bodied person using the accessible toilets even if they're not diabetic or have a stoma or whatever. It's not like a parking space where if an able-bodied person parks there it's unavailable for hours. If there's a queue for the regular cubicles and the accessible toilet is empty, what's wrong with using it?

sdrawkcaB:

leafygreens:

06 Feb 2014 12:02:50pm

Too many eateries have manky tiny toilets shoehorned in the back, through a storage zone, and I don't understand how they get to keep their liscence.. they should have been made to uprade to a unisex fully accessible one (or two..) at the next refit or by a set date.As you say, access was an issue a generation ago, and we still don't have it sorted!!

And what the big deal of a unisex, multifunction toilet room??... who's got a seperate male and female ones at home?

If you provide sit down for people, the assumption is you want them to hang around, so you should provide toilets.

Its not good enough to make people beg for a toilet, nor have to go to another business to use theirs.

Ramps, rails, elbow room, a lower wash basin are equally useful to older clients so the argument about only a small percentage of customers vs big cost/wasted space is getting exposed for what it always was... cr*p

reaver:

06 Feb 2014 11:00:25pm

It costs tens of thousands of dollars to move toilet facilities, leafygreens, and ramps take up ten times as much space as the equivalent height in stairs. Most small eateries would be sent out of business by the cost and wouldn't have enough floor space for the ramp and their tables, if indeed they even have enough space just for the ramp. It was for situations like this that the "unjustifiable hardship" provision was included in the Disability Discrimination Act 1992.

Geezer:

06 Feb 2014 12:18:03pm

I am able bodied and I have absolutely no qualms is using disabled toilets, provided that there's not any disabled folk waiting (and if there are I give them right of way).

Disabled loos are typically cleaner, there's more room so if you are travelling you can put your luggage down without it getting covered in filth, and you are in and out fairly quickly. It's ridiculous to see disabled toilets not being used when there's a queue outside the able bodied facilities.

Troppo:

06 Feb 2014 12:18:25pm

In the name of convenience why could not someone make a simple removal ramp to fit over the stairs that could be used in such circumstances or similar situations I realise this might not be the best solution and it would require some assistance but it would improve the problem in some/a lot of cases

sdrawkcaB:

06 Feb 2014 5:08:44pm

Disabled people have a right to dignified access.

Assistance is deemed undignified.

It takes 1.5metres of floor space to provide a stair that rises 1 metre. An equivalent disabled ramp at 1:14 is 14 metres and given its hard to get a 14 metre straight run, a landing would be involved for a u turn so its 15 metres of total run.

My point is there is a vast difference between the space requirement for disabled ramps and stairs....which is why stairs are so commonplace.

DavidSutton:

06 Feb 2014 10:01:52pm

Presumably a simple, open lift would take less room, but perhaps cost more $'s. If venues were obliged to have a sign on the window showing whether they have accessible toilets or not - would that work? Or are disabled people entitled to visit every venue that able-bodied people visit? It IS a right through the anti-discrimination legislation isnt it?

David:

06 Feb 2014 12:22:20pm

Toilets we take them for granted until we desperately have that sometimes desperate urge. I had occasion a few years back during my past employment to come across a ' Cross Dressing' group of men and found myself advising them on how to get about safely in their sometimes dangerous lifestyle, they were often harassed, abused and often bashed, by homophobes or those that cannot tolerate difference. One of their problems was where to get changed when meeting others, especially when not possible to do so at home or at work . If they used, a male toilet and a patron came across them, often assaulted and abused, the same with a female toilet, accused of all sorts of actions if a male caught in a female toilet. The only place thought to be safe was a disabled toilet. Others might find this repulsive and not agree, but, cross gender dunnies don't really exist much here and these people had a right to be safe.

reaver:

06 Feb 2014 12:37:07pm

Don't blame venues, such as the one that removed the ramp, for not having accessible facilities. Blame the law. That ramp would no doubt still be in place if the law didn't allowed drunk idiots to sue the places that they harm themselves in. Public liability's not the only legal issue involved in providing access. The cost and the difficulty in installing something like an access ramp in a heritage listed building are prohibitive. If the law made it cheaper, easier and less legally risky to have things like ramps than to not have things like ramps then you'd see a lot more things like ramps, but it doesn't.

GJA:

06 Feb 2014 4:14:16pm

If the ramp is properly installed, with the required safety features that have it in compliance with general OHS standards, there is no liabililty. Making accessiblity features "cheaper, easier" to install sounds like allowing them to be shoddy, rather than lessening liability. A job worth doing is worth doing right. It's a one-time cost, easily recouped. Blaming "the law" is silly.

reaver:

06 Feb 2014 8:01:44pm

As usual, GJA, you're discussing a subject you've had no experience in. Most of the cost of compliance in changing and adding to heritage buildings has nothing to do with the quality of the workmanship on the end product and legal liability doesn't end with compliance with general OHS standards. It's perfectly possible under the law to comply with general OHS standards and still be judged to have failed to fulfil a duty of care and thus be legally liable.

Petey:

06 Feb 2014 1:15:34pm

I'd never really given the issue of accessible toilets much thought, so thanks Stella for highlighting the problem. Given the bottom-dwelling nature of so many of our restaurants, the fact there are way too many of them and that they are hardly known for being enlightened employers, it's going to be a tough ask to get them to comply with their obligations. But comply they should. I hate the overuse of the word 'rights' these days, with its extension to all manner of privileges, but I'd say in this case, people have a perfectly reasonable 'right' to an accessible toilet.

Sara:

06 Feb 2014 1:45:17pm

Great and inclusive article, not all sicknesses and disabilities are visible and this is a very universal issue. A point that is lost on too many is that a venue is not accessible unless the toilets are also accessible. I've turned up to events where you can access the main venue, but the loo is down three flights of steps! That isn't accessible.

Erika:

06 Feb 2014 1:56:45pm

Although rare, the best solution of the lot is a loo that is labelled "Women" and is suitable for any woman, whether or not she has a disability, and another ditto for men.

This avoids that nasty business of people opening the cubicle lock with dirty hands. It allows for those other things, like twitter & lippy that Stella mentioned. Best of all, it means that a person with a disability is regarded, at least in regard to the dunny in question as being first and foremost a woman or a man and not disabled.

Therese:

06 Feb 2014 4:14:52pm

Great idea in principle Erica, but it doesn't solve my problem. My husband needs help with toileting, so unless there is a (unisex) disabled toilet , or we have a male relative or friend with us, we're very restricted as to where we can go together.

Miho:

06 Feb 2014 2:26:30pm

Thank you Stella, illuminating. I am one of those who don't look disabled but occasionally have need to use an accessible toilet because of the facilities it offers. If accosted about being able-bodied yet using a disabled toilet, my response will be: "You should have seen me before I went in there!". An aside: With disabled toilets on the increase, perhaps you should have become a plumber!

mike D :

06 Feb 2014 3:04:16pm

total disdain for people for able bodied or well limbed folks parking in disabled parking spaces....but as for the bathrooms it should be a non issue, and this is the first time i have heard that its almost taboo for a non handicapable person to use such a facility.

I use the disabled toilets at work, it is twice the size of my apartment and no one uses it, I would hate to have some gimp on my case just because im using a bathroom for a minute or two

Davidh Digman:

06 Feb 2014 3:53:29pm

Thank you for writing this well-crafted, much-needed piece, Stella.

I had a temporary accessibility issue when I broke my leg and ended up in a manual wheelchair for a few months. I thus learned the truth about accessibility in our 'inclusive society' the hard way. I gave up on going to restaurants or using public transport.

The excuses about liability for drunks is just that - an excuse.

It is sad that the only motivator for inclusion is legal and commercial ramification. I mean what about human compassion and basic decency?

What's that:

As a person with a disabled person in the family and lots of experience with public toilets I understand what you are saying and I find that there are many problems with toilet planning.

There are never enough toilets in shopping centres so anyone who needs a toilet urgently - heavily pregnant women, those with small children (it is a nightmare to try and take a toddler into a 'normal' public toilet as they are so small) and people with health problems who would not consider themselves disabled, have to use the disabled toilets even though they would rather not have the guilt of perhaps making another person wait.

The people who make the plans and decisions seem to have no idea of the problems or care.

Ann:

I never know if I should remind (ok...chastise) people who I know aren't disabled for using disabled toilets and parking spaces. If I don't know them, I wouldn't say anything...but there are people I know very well aren't disabled using them (I am in Hobart and you just know these things sometimes).

Cathy Fraser:

06 Feb 2014 4:10:38pm

I would have no problem in using the accessible loo if the women's is unavailable (say for cleaning) or as others have mentioned, there is a queue and there is nobody in the other one. I support the idea that all public loos should be "men's" and "women's" with accessible loos inside each area. Makes much more sense! While on the subject of public loos, why do so many toilets have no hook to hang your bag on? who wants to put your handbag on the floor of any toilet? Its a tad difficult to hold on to said bag while one uses the loo!

Heartlight:

06 Feb 2014 4:37:36pm

I have a dream, a dream that one day ALL toilets will be accessible. Surely its not beyond the design skills of architects to design toilets that are both accessible to everyone and unisex as well. Design them for the users rather than the cleaners. How about an international competition, after all, just about everyone uses public toilets.

Katie:

06 Feb 2014 4:38:19pm

Why do we not have all public toilets that everyone can use, instead of building toilets that just some people can use. It's unfair that we have public 'conveniences' that are unsuitable for some members of our community. Why should they have to fight for something so basic and be treated any differently. Any of us could one day find ourselves in the position of requiring an easily accessible loo.

Early Grayce:

07 Feb 2014 4:29:21am

It should be a requirement in all new buildings and any existing building undergoing renovation. I say this as although I would like to see accessible toilets in all public buildings it would be very difficult in some and quite a imposition on the owners of buildings if renovations were needed simply for this issue and could potentially cause some marginal businesses to fail. most businesses are not in such a precarious financial situation as to go under while renovating.

GrumpiSkeptic:

06 Feb 2014 4:46:21pm

I usually live some 60 Km from the nearest major shopping centre. By the time I messed about in town for a couple of hours, I am in need of a place to relieve myself.

Unfortunately, the shopping centres where Coles and Woolworth are do not have public toilets! It is my understanding that the shopping mall management did not want to deal with drug injections and vandalism in their toilets.

I needed to drive a couple of Km to Bunnings where it has clean toilets for all to use. Quite a strange feeling when I had to resort to such measure just to have a piss. Perhaps I should just locate a tree and in turn doing it a big favour at the same time.

Drunks in high heels? What a sight! Imagine it is hard enough to walk straight without the handicap of high heels.

I am surprised that the ramp was dismantled. Whoever did that probably waiting for a law suit to come their way.

Lachie:

06 Feb 2014 5:06:41pm

The Commonwealth Department of a Health and Ageing maintains a great App called ToiletMap as a part of the National Continence Management Strategy. This covers public toilets though not private ones such as in restaurants. It does identify accessible toilets.

I would be a little careful in blaming a venue for a failure to have an accessible toilet. Most restaurants do not own their premises and the decision to place one in an existing building is a decision made by the landlord.

If you boycott the restaurant as many posters here suggest you are most likely punishing an innocent business for the faults of a greedy landlord. Gosh the landlord may even be your super fund. Might cost you!

By the way while we are in the blame game we might consider that the Federal Parliament House does not have accessible egress for wheelchairs in the event of a fire. Responsibility starts at the top I would guess!

Early Grayce:

jaden62:

07 Feb 2014 7:22:19am

The map is not up to date. When I needed to use it, I found a number of the toilets locked when the map said they were open & a lot of businesses who were registered simply refused to allow my husband to use the toilet facilities.

Jane:

Melita:

06 Feb 2014 5:44:50pm

Thanks Stella for a well written article. I am able bodied and regularly use accessible toilets when out with my 6 and 3yo. Especially when toilet training! I sometimes call them family toilets. They also help my husband take the girls to the toilet when he has them by himself. Don't want to take a 6yo into the gents, and he can't go into the ladies.

missachrissa:

DannyS:

06 Feb 2014 7:26:06pm

Until recently I worked for a large Federal Government department that has shopfront stores all over the country, some in monster shopping malls.

The toilet facilities for the staff were extremely basic for the most part. The size of the cubicles making it difficult for even me to open the door far enough to get in and then close the door without sitting down first.

Wheelchair access was an absolute impossibility. It could not be done.

Staff in wheelchairs had to use the public toilets in the shopping centres, usually a floor or two down or up. Staff in suburban shopping strips simply had to hang on, or work part-time hours.

While laws apply to commercial and public access toilets, Government departments are exempt from these laws which is ironic when you consider the source of the laws.

Some years ago I had significant bowel problems and had a stoma for several months. I was on sick leave and didn't have to concern myself with disposing of and changing my bag in a commercial or public environment, thank God.

I hope I am well and truly retired from the workforce before I need to wear incontinence pads........

june:

06 Feb 2014 8:40:03pm

In Perth it is possible to get a small brochure listing all the public toilets, and indicating where the disabled ones are....surely this could be done by other authorities...even the disabled organisation itself could possibly arrange for this to be done??

Ravensclaw:

Just wondering if Stella objects to small able bodied children (i.e. children too big for nappies, but too small to use a normal sized toilet effectively or hygienically) using disabled toilets.

I am also concerned about the alarming statistics surrounding violence and exploitation of disabled persons, not just disabled women. Only caring about or representing disabled women is of course sexist!

Early Grayce:

07 Feb 2014 3:35:20am

There is a database including toilets around the country which also gives an idea about accessibility. This database is invaluable and with the advent of smartphones has been accessible on the run but even more convenient is the databases which use this data. My phone is a Nokia Lumia running WP8 and before that had one which ran WP7, both of these have had an application called Aussie Toilets that uses this data, mapping data, and also your GPS to give you the location of the nearest public toilet. It includes information such as facilities available, opening times parking and other details as well as give you directions for driving or walking to them but it is only as good as the database is and things like a ramp being removed is unlikely to be updated in reasonable time.I have had need to use the disabled toilet in the past and although I don't always need to I find that they are few and far between. As Stella stated about her diabetic friend, finding a place to inject is also a terrible chore but using disabled toilets is necessary as it allows a person space so they do not have to sit on the toilet while injecting and they also have sinks for clean water if needed for cleaning up and also a fit box so that you do not have to take your hardware home with you.